Before I continue, you want me to continue? — Dijkgraf

No. This is all made up in your head. The more important question is, why did you make it up? Why do you insist on believing something you know you just came up with?

You can deduce the proof from cosmology. — Dijkgraf

Please provide that proof then.

I can cite myself. — Dijkgraf

All right. At this point I know you're just trolling. No further responses from me.

I see you started a new discussion on this topic! I'm not sure why it makes you mad. It's not like believing in God. It's hard scientific reality. — Dijkgraf

Mind citing what that hard scientific reality is?

No, rebirth is no excuse, it's a fact. — Dijkgraf

A fact is something provable. Rebirth is no fact.

That's my point. It's not the same as in this universe. All material particles will disappear in time in this universe. New appear in a new bang. A new you and me appear. Why
shouldn't
they be me or you? — Dijkgraf

If its not the same as in this universe, then its not you. Beyond the fantastical idea that this will even happen, at best its a clone. Are you your clone? It is identical to you in every way, even with your memories. It is still not "you". When "you" die, you are dead. There is no coming back. Any clone will not be "you".

You can't be reborn in this universe. The clone is not you. It's impossible you are reborn in this universe, as the particles you are made of have a unique history. If all particles here will be gone in the future, new particles appear in a new big bang, leading to a new you. — Dijkgraf

Explain to me why you think that person born in a different universe is you? Its the same as if there was a clone in this universe. It is not you.

The clone argument doesn't hold for serial big bangs. I have good theoretical arguments for them to occur. You can get born like you in an infinite variety of planets and situations on them. We will come back... — Dijkgraf

Yes it does. If you are cloned after a big bang, that is not you. You will not come back. You will never come back. I don't say this to hurt you. I say this so you recognize reality, and are able to live your life free from a fantasy otherwise.

Who says our state doesn't appear again in a follow up big bang? All material particles in the present universe will be annihilated in the far future. All that will be left is a diluting photon gass sending fleeting remembrances of all happy happenings into oblivion at infinity. This state can induce a new bang and fresh particles can condense on a new planet around a new star into new you's, me's and everyone's. Just a thought. — Dijkgraf

Who says it would? Lets see what we know. First, we do not know if there will be a follow up big bang. That is as much heaven or hell as anything else.

Second, you are who you are because of yourself, and the circumstances you are in. If you were cloned today, you would not be your clone. You would be in one location, while they would be in another. You would not share consciousness. On the second of creation, your paths would diverge. In the incredibly unlikely scenario of an exact repeat of existence trillions of years later, it would not be you, just someone very like you. You will be dead and gone. You will never come back.

Non-existence is not a state, it is an absence of a state. You will get so many years of existence, then you will cease to be. That is it. Your brain and body die, and because you are 100% your brain and body, you die as well. Do not live with the idea that there will be something after, live with the idea that what you have is a precious moment in all of existence that will never be repeated again.

Sorry for the wait Bob, busy week, and I wanted to have time to focus and make sure I really covered the answers here.

If we define inapplicable plausibilities in the manner of the latter, then I would advocate that all inapplicable plausibilities are actually irrational inductions. However, if the former is also utilized to a certain degree, then further consideration is required. — Bob Ross

Yes, this is the distinction I am going for. Perhaps I need another name for a belief in something that is counter to what is applicably known. Perhaps that should be classified as an impossibility. Belief in inapplicable plausibilities or impossibilities would be considered irrational inductions. But, I do want to note irrational inductions have their uses. If there are no rational inductions, it is our only option. Further, there are times when the more rational conclusion may be based off an odd context or faulty premises, and irrational inductions are needed to push past those boundaries.

Stating "there is a smallest particle that can exist" is no different than stating "there is an undetectable unicorn". — Bob Ross

I don't think these are equivalent. The first is a logical conclusion based on our distinctive knowledge. "Smallness" is a state of relativity. Meaning that if two particles are compared, we can observe if one is smaller than the other. This can be applicably known, therefore it is possible that one particle can be smaller than another. We can then construct a formula stating, "If particles can be compared, and we know it is possible for particles to be smaller than another, if we take all of the particles in the universe, there will be a smallest particle."

This formula would be formal logic of possibility. The problem is when the formula is applied. If we are to state, "That particle is the smallest", we would need to gather all of the particles of the universe to know this. The problem is, we cannot gather all of the particles in the universe, and at that point, our claim is now an inapplicable plausibility.

Compare this to an undetectable unicorn. We don't even know if a unicorn is possible. This is constructed on a possibility of a horse with a horn, and the plausibility of something that can exist in the universe, but not be detected. Unlike the former formula which is based directly off of a possibility, we have a plausibility mixed into the chain of rationality to arrive at this conclusion.

Turning particle comparison into a similar cogency of an undetectable unicorn would be something like, "There exists the groggiest particle in the universe." A groggy particle is something that is both larger, and smaller than the particles around it. But a groggy particle is a plausibility based off the possibility of a particle being smaller, and a particle being bigger. We don't know if groggy particles are possible, let alone whether any one particle is the groggiest. Honestly, its a very slight difference in cogency revealed by the chain of reasoning.

I have no problem with #1, but #2 is where the ambiguity is introduced: you are clumping "trees" together as if that is a universal, it is a particular. To "experience something, and state "that is X"", is something someone can do with virtually anything. To say that the only requirement in #2 is that the essential properties are not contradicted is like using potentiality is if it is possibility. Just because the essential properties don't contradict doesn't mean I am justified in claiming X and Y are similar enough for me to constitute it as the same experience on two different occasions. — Bob Ross

But in the case of the use of tree here, I am not defining it as, "This tree here, is the same as that tree here." I am defining it as a universal. "All things that are wooden and taller than myself are trees." That's all that's required for me to applicably know something as a tree. Every other property would be non-essential to matching that definition.

Plato once postulated that everything had an ideal form. There was an ideal Tree, that our formulation of trees was based on. Epistemology studied variations of platonic forms for many years, and concluded that there was no ideal form of anything. There is no arbiter of reality that declares what a tree is. That is all based on our distinctive knowledge. If I decide to define "tree" as a universal, I can. As long as its useful in application, I should.

The point of epistemology, is to figure out how we can claim knowledge of the world. That requires a method of ordering our ability to discretely experience in a way that is rational. Of course someone within their own context can define anything as they like. The point of introducing the logical constraints of the theory is to give a tool to do it in such a way that uses rational outcomes that are consistently useful and have the highest chance of being accurate in their assessment of the world.

I think you're also using the term potentiality incorrectly. Potentiality has nothing to do with the act of application. It is simply whether we've created distinctive knowledge that is not contradicted by other distinctive knowledge in our head. If I said a tree an essential property of a tree was that it must be taller than myself, but then also said an essential property of a tree is that it must be shorter than myself, this is a contradiction, and inapplicable. Potentiality is a general description of whether something is rational in the hierarchy of inductions, but it does not introduce anything new, or contradict the rules of the hierarchy. When applying the distinctive knowledge you have created, if it is similar enough that it does not contradict the essential properties of your definition, then you applicably know it. When formulating distinctive knowledge in your head, if it is non-contradictory to other distinctive knowledge, then it has potential.

Sure, we could say that it (gravity) has the same essential property that it falls both times, but that does not mean they are identical enough to constitute it as the same experience: experiencing it on a mountain isn't the same as in a valley. Can I say, after experiencing it in a valley, that it is possible on a mountain? — Bob Ross

It depends on the context, and the definition of the word. If the only essential property of gravity as a definition is, "That which pulls me to the ground," then yes, you experience gravity in both places. If you have only experienced gravity in a valley, and have not yet gone to a mountain or know what it is composed of, this is an applicable plausibility that gravity will also exist on a mountain. If you say, I have experienced gravity on the planet Earth, then it is possible that when you go to anywhere on Earth, you will experience gravity.

It is all about the context and degree of specificity. The more specific and exacting you are in the requirements to applicably know something, the more difficult it becomes to applicably know it, and the more you have to rely on inductions. Of course, define something too broadly and generally, and it isn't very useful. Define something to narrow and exacting, and it generally won't be useful in most cases either.

1. I think, therefore I discretely experience — Bob Ross

This is incorrect. Thoughts have nothing to do with the ability to discretely experience. I never say, "First I think, then I discretely experience." I eliminate thoughts, and arrive at the idea that discrete experience is the one thing I cannot eliminate. There is nothing to necessitate that I define thoughts in a particular way. I could never define thoughts if I wanted to.

For centuries the number zero did not exist. Nothing in math necessitated that we define zero, but defining zero turned out to be incredibly useful. I only defined thoughts in such a way that was useful and relatable to other people. But I could easily see another person never defining thoughts at all. They could define thoughts as part of the senses that are unceasing. As long as it was defined in such a way as to have potential, and it could be applied without contradiction, then that is what they would distinctively and applicably know thoughts as.

Thoughts, as defined here, are simply my ability to continue to discretely experience when I stop sensing. I can choose that definition, because I can choose how to discretely experience.

Again, you are concluding this, which is a thought, so you are using thought to prove discrete experiences, and then vice-versa. — Bob Ross

No, I am taking certain discrete experiences, and labeling them as thoughts. Thoughts are a subset of discrete experiences, they do not define discrete experiences. I do not consider "sensing" as thoughts within that context, but they are also discrete experiences.

Could you define it differently? I'm sure you could. Maybe you think everything is a thought, in which case, then thoughts would be a synonym for discrete experiences. If so, you would need to come up with a new word for the sub-thought that happens when you no longer sense. Or maybe that's not an essential property for you. Define it as you will, that fits within the theory. It is only when you apply it that it must not be contradicted by reality for you to applicably know it.

If you think I do not know that within my self-context, can you disprove it? Can you demonstrate that I do not discretely experience?

I think this is an appeal to ignorance fallacy, I don't have to disprove it. — Bob Ross

Let me rephrase this to what it should have been. Can you disprove that you discretely experience? Recall this is not merely "thinking" as I've defined it in the paper. It is the ability to take the entirety of your experience, and divide it into parts. The question of course is, can you even make an argument against discretely experiencing, if you didn't discretely experience? If you can counter the idea that you discretely experience, then yes, the entire theory fails. But if you can't, then I see nothing against it.

Thanks again Bob, I will be answering more quickly this week.

Thank you for sticking with it TootheyMaw, I think I understand your stance better now. I do agree in the context of a survey, people have bipartisan support for health care, but like SSU noted, in the context of political moments that drive people to vote, a Trumpian view captures the attention more than healthcare. Is this the way we should operate? Ideally, no. But is it the way a lot of us operate? I think so.

I really agree with SSU's last post, so nothing else to add here.

I think the comparison is more relevant when you actually have to choose between the two. As a radical example, imagine someone puts a gun up to your head and tells you to bet your life on either plausibility A or B (where both are completely unrelated): I don't think you would just flip a coin, or answer with indifference. I think you would analyze which you are more sure of. — Bob Ross

I would argue in that case that analyzing the plausibilities is relevant to that situation. :grin: I think we understand the points here.

I think you were right in wanting to move inapplicable plausibilities to irrational inductions, because they lack potential. I can never apply the belief that any given infinite, within a limit, is actually infinite. — Bob Ross

The reason why I haven't yet lumped it into an irrational induction, is there is an essential difference between the two. An inapplicable plausibility is unable to be applied, while an irrational induction is a belief in something, despite the application contradicting the belief. But as you've noted, niether have potential, so I think they can be lumped together into a category.

However, claiming their is a first cause would be the same as claiming this particle is actually the smallest particle that can exist: — Bob Ross

I think a more accurate comparison would be "Claiming there is a first cause is the same as claiming there is a smallest particle that can exist." Comparitively, claiming, "This thing is a first cause, is the same as claiming this particle is the smallest particle." Each have different claims of existence and logic behind it. While I believe the most cogent belief is that there is at least one first cause, I find the bar to prove that any one thing is a first cause, may be extremely difficult to claim.

The reason is simple. A first cause has no prior reason for its existence. But there is nothing to prevent it from appearing in such a way, that a person could still interpret that something caused it to exist. If a particle appeared with a velocity, how could we tell the difference between it, and a particle who's velocity was caused by another? We would have to witness the inception of the self-caused particle at the time of its formation. But a historical analysis would make the revelation of certain types of self-caused things impossible.

It is when you have concluded applicable knowledge within your context.

I consider this completely ambiguous. Although I understand what you are trying to say. I think, as of now, your epistemology is just leaving it up to the subject to decide what is or isn't possible (because they can make, in the absence on any clear definition, "experienced before" mean anything they want). — Bob Ross

Not quite. Recall what is required for applicable knowledge from the self-context.

1. One must have distinctive knowledge first. Distinctive knowledge is the essential properties you have decided something should be. I can define a "tree" as being a wooden plant that is taller than myself.

2. Experience something, and state, "That is a tree." To applicably know it is a tree, your essential properties must not be contradicted. Turns out the plant I'm looking at it wooden, and taller than myself. I applicably know it as a tree. Therefore I know it is possible that there are wooden plants taller than myself.

The "experience" is to have applicably known something before. To applicably know something, the individual must meet these minimum specific standards. They can make distinctive knowledge whatever they want, but the application of that distinctive knowledge must follow the process.

My point is that it isn't a proof: it is vicious circle. As far as I understand it, you are stating that "I think, therefore I think", "I perceive, therefore I perceive", and "I feel, therefore I feel". These are not proofs, these are the definition of circular logic. — Bob Ross

I don't believe this is the case. Circular logic is when a reason, B, is formed from A, and A can only be formed from B. Thus the simple example of, "The bible states God exists. How do we know the bible is true? God says it is."

But the foundation of discretely experiencing does not rely on the definition of thoughts or perceptions. They do not prove that we discretely experience. Discrete experience is simply the ability to essentially form identities within the wash of experience. A camera can take a picture, but it cannot discretely experience beyond the colors of light it receives. We can. We can focus on certain portions, lump them together as identities, see sheep in fields of grass.

My definition of "thoughts" does not prove discrete experience. My definition of thoughts comes from discrete experience. Thoughts, as defined here, are simply my ability to continue to discretely experience when I stop sensing. I can choose that definition, because I can choose how to discretely experience. I can then apply it without contradiction. If I stop sensing, and still discretely experience, then I am thinking without contradiction.

Where is this circular? I see this as a logical consequence, not a conclusion that is the only source that proving that I discretely experience.

I am having a hard time of understanding how this isn't "I discretely experience because I discretely experience". — Bob Ross

It is, "I discretely experience, therefore I can define a portion of my experience as "thoughts". When do this without contradiction within a particular context (Saying thoughts != thoughts is a contradiction), then I say I know it.

If you think I do not know that within my self-context, can you disprove it? Can you demonstrate that I do not discretely experience? You cannot, because the act of coming up with an argument alone, and me understanding the counter argument, requires that I discretely experience. Discretely experiencing is a law of a communicable being, built on the principal of non-contradiction. As far as assumptions go, I believe the law of non-contradiction is the one assumption I need to form the theory.

Of course, maybe I've missed something. If you truly believe it is circular, can you demonstrate it? I look forward to your reply.

my point is indeed obvious. Thanks. — ToothyMaw

No, it wasn't. L'elephant is a person who is within more of the far right culture, so he's probably heard something similar to what you were stating. For a person who is unfamiliar with that culture, it was hard to decipher. When we speak within a culture, we can say much while saying little. When outside of that culture, we have to say much to say little.

He is talking about how the government tries to stir the public's attention to the domestic (internal) problems, while talking about going to war on the global scale. Internal affairs as diversion, so the government could focus on going to a massive war with another country. — L'éléphant

Sometimes government do this, but I don't see any evidence of this within the last 15 years. Trump, Obama, and Biden despite what you personally think of them, were not war mongers.

Or talking about domestic culture conflicts while dodging the scrutiny on the lack of socialized medicine. ETC — L'éléphant

This is more accurate. I believe this is mostly because its what people care about more. When people vote, you need them impassioned and willing to come to the booth. Not enough people are excited over socialized medicine. Look at Bernie Sanders. He didn't quite win the Democratic nomination. Its not that government seems to actively be keeping it down, its that people are not actively interested enough, or demanding enough for it. If anything, I would say its the wealthy who would have to pay for it, who have spent a lot of time and effort convincing the culture that it would be wrong for them.

I didn't even say that, you didn't even quote me, you just made that up. — ToothyMaw

I'm just trying to piece together what you were trying to say. Relax. I'm not here to hurt you, honestly. If I was wrong, please correct me. Try taking one idea per sentence. When you blend a bunch together, its difficult for other people reading to understand what you're saying. Often when we write, its clear as day in our heads. But, when we type it out, sometimes it doesn't come out as we wanted. Its something we all learn from each other. Just try again.

I am against the people using the term "neo-marxist" to tar other people in the military, and that attempting to appease the kind of people that push for the more radical leftist social ideas, such as that the January 6th Insurrection was caused by white rage, give people like Gorka ammunition - because the right has an inherent advantage when it comes to the culture war. — ToothyMaw

This was one sentence that had a lot of ideas. Lets break this up a bit.

"I am against the people using the term "neo-marxist" to tar other people in the military".

Who are these people that are using such a term? What do they mean by that term?

"I am also against attempting to appease the kind of people that push for the more radical leftist social ideas. One of these ideas is that the January 6th Insurrection was caused by white rage. When people go along with these claims, they give ammunition to people like Gorka. I think we need to fight
them brutally (violence?) and that social wins will just come elsewhere."

Who are the kind of people that are appeasing? Are the people we appeasing those that accuse people in the military of being neo-Marxist? Why are some people appeasing them? Are all the people who are saying "white rage" was a factor of the January 6th insurrection all "leftists"? Because I believe its a discussion between many people, not just "leftists".

Do people like Gorka really need ammunition, or will they just be contrary and make up accusations for money regardless? Does the fact that someone will use your words against you, mean you should speak what you consider true or right? Just some questions to consider.

Sorry for that response. Can I help you understand better what I wrote? — ToothyMaw

Its ok, we all blow some steam sometime. Yes, I didn't see precisely where you were going. Try to give me a main idea, and focus on that. You wrote more like a steam of consciousness, which is normal for many people. Try to take a step back and tell me:

What is going on in the military that you find wrong? What is the evidence for this? Why do you think this attempt in the military will fail?

In general, and this is my personal preference, I try to avoid phrases like "the left" or "the right". They're generally nebulous and open to individual interpretation. Focus on ideas. People will make their own judgement if this is leaning a political way, but on the philosophy forums, our focus should be on the ideas themselves.

Lets disregard the fact that the studies you cited do not back your claim. What would it take to show your claim has any merit?

First, we would need a controlled study over those decades. Consistent measures of what it is to be intelligent, and ensuring that such a measure of intelligence is not culturally or socially biased.

Second, we would likely need detailed brain scans to compare brain development.

Neither of these things is available. Therefore any claim that we are less intelligent than our ancestors is purely speculative, and cannot be based on any serious study or science.

ToothyMaw, this was kind of a rant. Your video is a link to a one sided and positively biased interview to Dr. Gorka, who was appointed as Deputy Assistant to the President and Strategist to Trump from January 2017 to August 2017. After these nine months, he resigned, and was a Fox News contributer from 2017-2019.

According to wikipedia: "In April 2021, Gorka was permanently banned from YouTube for repeatedly violating the company's policy on spreading misinformation related to the 2020 presidential election.[53][54] Gorka's America First radio show had previously been banned from the site in 2019 for copyright violations, specifically due to Gorka's refusal to stop playing the Imagine Dragons song "Radioactive" in his intro segment."

So we have a topic from a man who barely worked in the White House for 9 months, then did nothing besides be a political commentator, who ultimately was banned from Youtube for lying.

I'm not sure anything this man has to say can be considered trust worthy or notable. If you believe that neo-Marxists are invading the millitary, can you find some better citations? For example, someone who did a study on the millitary, or internal millitary reports. Otherwise, this isn't really anything worthy of discussion.

But I suspect that you are only referring to the comparison of plausibilities that relate to one another, so I would like to explicitly state that I am claiming that one can compare all plausibilities to one another in this manner. — Bob Ross

Yes, if you're just comparing the fundamental building blocks of different plausibilities, you can determine plausibility A is more cogent than plausibility B. The problem is, if they aren't within the same context, how useful is that analysis?

Recall that inductions are made because we have limitations in what we applicably know. Further, less cogent inductions are used to compare what belief you should make about a particular situation. Its about comparing your options. If I'm talking about subject X, and I have two plausibilities, going through the chain of rationality to discover which plausibility is more rational, is useful. If I have a plausibility about subject X, and a plausibility about subject A, what does comparing the cogency get me?

It may be that the plausibility about subject X is more rational than the plausibility about subject A, but when considering subject A, I have no alternative belief about A, but that plausibility. In that case, the most cogent thing is to choose to act, or not act on that one plausibility I have. This is the point I wanted to emphasize first, though I'm thinking I should have emphasized the technical comparison, then explained when and what context you should compare.

I think that, in light of us agreement on potentiality, we can finally prove that actual infinites are irrational inductions. — Bob Ross

Your two examples are great. Unlimited infinities are irrational. But some limited infinities may be inapplicable plausibilities. Perhaps there is no limit to space for example. Its plausible. But it is currently inapplicable. When considering the limits of space, we have no viable inductions we can make, so we must remain in the realm of inapplicable plausibility.

I think, as you may already be inferring, that this actually have heavy implications with respect to your idea of a "first cause" — Bob Ross

Yes. Stating that everything which has a cause, must have a cause, is an unlimited infinity. It breaks down if you examine it in the argument. All that is left, is that there must be a first cause. BUT, this is still either an applicable or inapplicable plausibility at best. It is simply more cogent to believe that there is a first cause, then not. Since we do not have any higher induction we can make in regards to the a first cause within the context of that argument, it is more cogent to conclude there is a first cause.

I know we had a lot of disputes about mathematical inductions, and so I wanted to briefly continue that conversation with the idea that mathematical inductions do not require another term, contrary to what I was claiming, because they are possibilities. — Bob Ross

Yes, this seems correct. There is a fine dividing line between possibility and applicable knowledge. To say something is possible, is to say the applicable knowledge you just obtained, will be able to be applied again. But this is if we apply that math to reality by actively putting a number within the equation. The logic of the equation itself, is distinctive knowledge based on the rules we have constructed.

I think that it would be beneficial to really hone in on what it means to have "experienced something before". Where are we drawing the line? Is there a rational line to be drawn? — Bob Ross

It is when you have concluded applicable knowledge within your context. You can experience something, but not have applicable knowledge of it. Lets say you're in a field with a horned goat and ram. When gazing with the animals behind your back, you get head butted from behind. When you gather yourself off the ground and look behind you, you realize the horns are very similar, and you can't tell which one head butt you.

The thing you can applicably know by going through your distinctive knowledge, is that you were hit by something. There is a bruise on your back in the imprint of a horn, and it is not possible that you could fall down from an impact that bruises you without that being "something". But was it the ram or the goat? Its plausible it was something you weren't aware of at all, but you believe its possible both goats and rams can head butt a person, and it seems more cogent to believe one of them did it.

But will you ever applicably know which one head butt you? No. Its plausible to believe it was only the sheep, or only the ram. But couldn't we say it was possible that it was either the sheep or the ram because we know it is possible for sheep and rams to head butt people? The care is in the intent of the induction. If I say, "I believe it was the sheep, and not the ram," that is the plausibility. If I say, "I believe it was either the sheep or the ram", this is a possibility.

I'm not sure if that answered the question, but I felt this was a good example to show the fine line between what can be applicably known, possibility, and plausibility. Feel free to dig in deeper.

I think that your epistemology, at its core, rests on assumptions. Now, I don't mean this is a severe blow to the your views: I agree with them. What I mean is that, as far as I am understanding, your epistemology really "kicks in" after the subject assumes that perception, thought, and emotion are valid sources of knowledge. — Bob Ross

I don't believe I make those assumptions at all. Its been a while since we visited the building blocks of the paper on page one to determine the difference between distinctive knowledge, and applicable knowledge. I do not claim that perception, thoughts, and emotions are valid sources of knowledge. I claim they are things we know, due to the basis of proving, and thus knowing, that I can discretely experience.

The discrete experience you have, the separation of the sea of existence into parts and parcels, is not an assumption, or a belief. It is your direct experience, your distinctive knowledge. I form the discrete experience of thoughts as a very low set of essential properties in the beginning, so that I can get to the basic idea of the theory. But now that you have it, go back to the beginning. Use the theory on the formulation of the theory itself. Does it still hold? I think you'll find it will.

You create an idea of a thought, and you confirm it without contradiction immediately, because it is a discrete experience. Later, you can go back and ask, "Can I refine what a thought is? Could I redefine it? What is the difference between a thought and an emotion? Can I find essential properties that differ, and apply this to myself?"

Or back to your original issue, "What is an "I"? Can I define it as more than simply that which discretely experiences? Perhaps other creatures discretely experience, but they obviously do it differently from humans?" The doors are open now that you understand the theory. Tackle mind, tackle ethics, tackle God itself. The system of distinctive knowledge, applicable knowledge, and the inductive hierarchy can be applied to it all.

Will this refine the system itself? Almost certainly. I am under no illusions it is complete, because the reality is, as contexts change, and as more people use it, there are bound to be refinements, and even different contexts of applying the theory itself. But is it a fundamental base that you can retreat to? A base that is consistently logical in its own formation, as well as its application? I believe so. I use it in my own life, which I think adds to the strength of its use as a tool.

If only I could ever get the idea out there in the philosophical community at large. I have tried publication to no avail. Honestly, I don't even care about credit. Perhaps someone on these forums will read it, understand it, and be able to do what I was unable to. Or perhaps someone will come along and finally disprove it. Either way, it would make me happy to have some resolution for it.

But back to your questions and detailed drilling. I feel we are coming to an end of the questions about understanding the theory itself, but let us resolve any remaining ones. If you are satisfied, feel free to test the theory in action. We can use it to address epistemology issues or questions you may have had, like thoughts or "I". Since we understand the theory, honestly the best critique of it is to use it. And what better test of a theory of knowledge then to see if it can know itself?

Thanks again Bob. It has been very gratifying to have someone seriously read and understand the theory up to this point. Whether the theory continues to hold, or crashes and burns, this has been enough.

I finally think I see what you have been trying to tell me about "potential". I knew you saw something there that I was unable to grasp, but I think I at last understand what it is.

The point I am trying to make is that "irrational induction" is not just what is contradicted by direct experience but, rather, it is also about whether it is contradicted in the abstract. — Bob Ross

Yes, I think this works nicely! I think potentiality nicely describes process of creating the useful distinctive knowledge we come up with. Anything which we come up with in our minds that contradicts our other distinctive knowledge, could be said to lack "potential". As long as potential is not used, or is clarified into something like "applicable potential" when being applied to reality, I think we have a clearly defined word that does not have a synonym, and can be applicably known. Do I have the right of it? Feel free to clarify further, but I think I'm seeing the spark you've been thinking about.

Your analysis of the hierarchy is spot on. This is what I've been trying to communicate for a while as well. A great breakdown and example!

At first, I thought I could utilize the sheer quantity to determine the cogencies with respect to one another. I was wrong, it gets trickier than that because the components themselves are also subject to an induction hierarchy within themselves. — Bob Ross

Correct.

[horses, horns] - evolution -> unicorn: (horned {possible characteristic} horse)
[horses, horns] - evolution -> unicorn: (horned {ditto} horse, invisibility {plausible characteristic} capabilities)

Therefore, #1 is more cogent than #2, not due to the sheer consideration of quantities of components, but the quantity in relation to an induction hierarchy within the component itself. In other words, a plausibility that has one component which is based off of a possible characteristic is more cogent (doesn't mean it is cogent) than one that has component which is based off of a plausible characteristic. — Bob Ross

Perfect! Yes, this is the conclusion I was hoping you would reach. Its not necessarily quantity we even have to consider. Its just that we have to consider all the essential properties of the grounding inductions (Good phrase!) that build up that induction. Each must be considered within the hierarchy as well. So if you conclude that an induction is built up of two essential properties, one having a direct grounds off of applicable knowledge, while the other has grounds on plausibilities, you can rationally reject the second essential property, but keep the first.

However, it isn't just about the relation to an induction hierarchy within the component itself: it is also about the quantity, but the quantity is always second (subordinate) to the consideration of the relation. — Bob Ross

You are right on target. Another way to think about it is a chain is built of links. But each link has a chain as well. When I state, distinctive knowledge -> possibility -> plausibility, the chain of reasoning also applies to each base. How did I arrive at that distinctive knowledge? How did I arrive at that possibility? I think you have it.

I hope that serves as a basic exposition into what I mean by "comparing plausibilities". — Bob Ross

Yes, this is clear, and always what I intended, but did not communicate clearly. When I spoke that you could not compare plausibilities directly, I meant that you could not do so without analyzing the chain of reasoning behind them. But I never described sub chains directly like you did. You have written this much clearer and with greater focus than I have, and it is a wonderful and excellent break down!

And, as you can see, I like to converse with you! — Alkis Piskas

Thanks for the contribution to the OP! I'll see you around.

But I always stop reading something when it starts and is based on a wrong assumption. Well, this is me! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Fair. :smile:

I would say though that sureness is not the same as certainty. The intention is to use a word that conveys some conviction, assumption, or emotional indicator that compels a person that they believe X is worth holding. I even posted the word "will" next to it, so you would understand the context of what I was trying to convey.

Look at it this way, what makes you believe anything? For most beliefs, there is some type of conviction behind it. Regardless, you may not like the essay, because you have a prescriptive outlook on what I should be saying, instead of trying to understand what I'm intending to say. As this is an exploratory essay, and not a repeat of what is already known as fact, the latter intention is what is needed when approaching the paper. I do appreciate your comment, and your polite follow up!

I'm sorry for not being able to go further in this topic, because it starts and is based on a wrong assumption. I only wanted to point this out. — Alkis Piskas

That's a fairly dishonest reading. I never claimed beliefs were knowledge. I claimed that before we start with knowledge, we had to start by looking at beliefs. Its just an introduction to a paper, not the claim you're presupposing. Knowledge indeed consists of facts, information, and skills acquired through experience. If you had read just until the end of the page, I think you would have understood where this was going.

Potentiality is "what is not contradicted in the abstract", whereas possibility is "what has been experienced before". — Bob Ross

I rather like your definition of potentiality here. I think it hammers home what we've been trying to get to. However, I think we can also see the problem with it. Almost every single belief of induction is not contradicted in the abstract. Meaning at best we describe all inductions besides irrational induction. Which, an irrational induction, is something that is not rational. This in turn implies that potentiality is a subset of rationality, "That which is not contradicted in the abstract."

It is not the identity I am critiquing, it is the word. Potentiality as a word, because it also implies something beyond this strict reading. Potentiality seems to also go along with "What is possible". What is not contradicted in the abstract, is not necessarily possible as we've discussed. The division between possibility and plausibility has been the focus of the last several posts of discussion. That is because there is an innate human desire to believe that if there is no contradiction in the mind, it must be possible in reality.

But that is a belief, and not rational. Rationally, something that is not contradicted in the mind may have no bearing as to wheather it is contradicted when applied to reality. But, perhaps we can create two identities that try to contain what you are saying while being consistent with the theory. As you can note, I have constantly divided beliefs into two camps, distinctive, and applicable. There are two identities that we could examine then.

1. A belief which is not contradicted by other beliefs.
2. Distinctive knowledge applied to reality which is not contradicted by other distinctive knowledge.

In the second case, this is a different way of describing applicable knowledge. The first case, is distinctive knowledge. Distinctive knowledge is exactly what you describe. When we create distinctive knowledge, we then have to have a reason to attempt to apply that to reality. Rationally, we would want to apply something that we believe to have no contradiction to reality, over a series of contradictory thoughts to reality.

Recall that to know something, there must be an application of essential properties. To apply our distinctive knowledge to reality while expecting an outcome, is always an induction; its always a belief. While it is more cogent, and arguably "safer" to stay within the higher tiers of inductions such as probability and possibility, you will never find new possibilities in the world if you do not explore plausibilities. When we explore plausibilities, we believe there is a chance they are real. But we must also temper our mind with the understanding that there is an equally unspecified chance that they are not real.

Perhaps "potentiality" could be used to describe the drive that pushes humanity forward to extend outside of its comfort zone of distinctive knowledge, and make the push for applicable knowledge. The drive to act on beliefs in reality. But what I think you want, some way to measure the potential accuracy of beliefs, is something that cannot be given. There is no way to measure whether one plausibility is more likely than another in reality, only measure whether one plausibility is more rational than another, but examining the chain of reason its built on.

This is because the nature of induction makes evaluation of its likelihood impossible by definition. An induction is a conclusion that does not necessarily follow the premises. As we've seen with probability, coming up with odds requires defined limits. An induction may be built upon deductions, which have defined limits, but there comes a part of the claim which is not defined by limits. Without limits, we cannot evaluate whether if it is more likely to pass than another claim which is not defined by limits. The only way to know, is to take that chance, that risk, and apply it to reality and see what happens.

"I've experienced a cup holding water, therefore it is possible for a cup to hold water"
"I'm now experiencing cups not being able to hold water, therefore it is impossible for them to hold water"
"The most recent experience out of the two takes precedence" — Bob Ross

For clarification, if you recall the second paper (Its been a while now!) when we are faced with a contradiction of our applicable knowledge with new applicable knowledge, we have several options of dealing with it. We could create a new term. Adjust our context, which essentially modifies the knowledge we use to avoid the contradiction. Or we can just state that one of the things we applicably knew, is wrong and can no longer be applicably known.

So while I could conclude that it is impossible for a cup to hold water, that is now a new belief that must be applicably known, not just concluded in your mind. What are the essential properties of a cup? Can you find objects that have those properties, but some hold water, and some don't? Do you need to adjust what you define by a cup? Perhaps the essential property of holding water, should become a non-essential property. There are lots of ways to approach it.

It is not that the most recent experience of the two takes precedence, it is that the most recent experience of a cup challenges your applicable knowledge. Right now you are making an induction as to what that means. You can induce, "It is impossible for a cup to hold water now," but is that applicable knowledge? You must apply that belief to reality, and see if it "holds water".

What I am understand you to hold here, is that you can hold that it is impossible to fit 7,000 2 in long candy bars, side by side long ways, within 1,000 feet because you have abstractly considered its lack of potential. — Bob Ross

If you are stating that the conclusion through distinctive knowledge is that you can't fit X > Y feet into Y feet is impossible, than yes. If you apply this to reality, you must be very specific with the properties of the material in use. A lack of known applicable knowledge in its application means you are working with a plausibility. Since candy bars are malleable, I very well could jam that many candy bars together. If I note I can only use material that is not malleable, then I would be creating a belief that is a possibility.

Since it is possible to find material that is not malleable, and can be stacked or lined together, then I know it is not possible to jam more of those material into a space that is smaller than the entire measurement of those materials. The possibility in this instance, is that it will not fit. We have never experienced in reality, a situation in which unmalleable material can fit in a space smaller than its dimensions.

I am stating "I've experienced X before, and the extrapolation of X contradicts Y in the abstract". — Bob Ross

You are stating a possibility or plausibility depending on how you word it. If you are combining two possibilities to show that a plausibility cannot occur, you have stated something distinctively impossible. If you are using a possibility to construct a plausibility, or something that is not contradicted by other possibilities in your mind, then you are not stating an impossibility, only a plausibility. Holding to a distinctive impossibility and applying it to reality, is an irrational belief.

But, what is impossible in our distinctive knowledge, may not be impossible when applied to reality. Because inductions are again, beliefs. We may believe something to be impossible, but it may not be impossible when applied to reality.

So, I think the difficulty is in separating the two types of knowledge. Impossibility, is no longer a general word that dictates what can, and cannot be. There is an impossibility within distinctive knowledge, and there is an impossibility within applicable knowledge.

With ALL of this covered, lets go to your break down of potentiality.

"what is not contradicted in the abstract"

Although I don't think abstraction has to be directly applicably known (like I would have to go test, every time, the usage of mathematical operations passed what has been previously experienced) — Bob Ross

You are correct. Distinctive knowledge does not have to be applicably known. Applicable knowledge is a claim that what we distinctively know, can be applied to reality without contradiction. But we can hold any distinctive knowledge as long as we don't assume it can be applied to reality without contradiction.

but I think B is:

Abstraction is the distinctive knowledge, which is applicably known to a certain degree (i.e. I applicably know that my perceptions pertain to impenetrability and cohesion, etc), that is inductively utilized to determine potentiality. — Bob Ross

There is no requirement of applicable knowledge for distinctive knowledge. Distinctive knowledge is what we use as a basis for our inductions about reality. But it can exist without such application.

C is:

The defining of "possibility" as "I've experienced X before, because I've experienced X IFF X==X" removes the capability for the subject to make any abstract determinations, therefore potentiality is a meaningful distinction not implemented already in possibility (and likewise for impossibility). — Bob Ross

I do not see this. Possibilities do not remove the capability of making abstract determinations. I can create the image of a unicorn in my head by taking the distinctive knowledge of a horn, and putting it on the distinctive knowledge of a horse. I can have it run around in my head casting magic and flying through the air leaving a rainbow behind it.

If I think I can find such a thing in reality, I just have to realize its not a possibility, just a plausibility. The hierarchy of inductions is all about assessing which are the more cogent beliefs about reality. It does not say we cannot use them.

I am out of time this morning, but I want to post this to you while it is fresh in my mind. Please feel free to follow up on this!

Thank you! No, I have not read it. Due to time this morning, I got some general concepts. While we may have some similar beginnings, I believe we diverge. The first part of the epistemology I've proposed here is very similar to many other theories of epistemology. But, where people build from that tends to diverge. Have you read all four parts? I'm quite certain I take a few turns from Rand.

Genius is a relative term. I like _db's reply of people who usher in a "paradigm shift". Intelligent and smart people come to the conclusions of generally smart people in a society. Geniuses can understand how people arrived at that conclusion, but also see something that the rest of society missed. Their revelation of what was missed then convinces and shapes how society views things in the future.

If you are interested in a serious discussion of epistemology that follows what you consider pragmatic, you can join Bob Ross and I here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9015/a-methodology-of-knowledge/p1 The first two pages of responses are primarily junk, but when Bob Ross joins, we have a serious discussion.

I agree, I definitely need to define it more descriptively. However, with that being said, at a deeper level, the term possibility is also like the word "big": it is contingent on a subjective threshold just like potentiality. — Bob Ross

All distinctive knowledge is formed subjectively. Why I think possibility is more clear and useful than potential as a discrete experience, is I have a clear definition that can be applied to reality without contradiction. How do I apply the definition of potential to applicably know it?

I agree, I think potentiality is an aspect of rationality. If it has no potential, just like if it isn't possible, then it is irrational. Potentiality isn't separate from rationality (it is apart of rational thinking). — Bob Ross

I think here we're along the same intuition. Intuitively, potentiality seems like a word that would be used to describe the likelihood of an induction being correct. But how do I determine that? How do I applicably know that? With probability, I have clear limitations in what can potentially be drawn. If I know the cards are set, but I don't know the outcome, I could say, "Potentially, I could draw a jack." Perhaps we could state potentiality is a description of the possible outcomes of a probability? Its clearly defined, and can be applicably known.

Perhaps with possibility, "potential" could be used as well. "Because the bear was here yesterday, its potentially here today." The only issue here is the word has changed meaning. What we're really stating in this instance is, "Its possible the bear is here today, because we applicably knew the bear was here yesterday. At that point, the word really is no different from "possibility".

I think that sums up my issues with the word. It needs a clear definition that can be applicably known. In regards to potentiality, it seems to be the same as the word possibility. So perhaps, we could call potential a synonym of possibility? Potential = possible?

I suppose I should also address why potential cannot work with plausibility at all. A plausibility has no means to evaluate its potential, because I believe potential evaluates a strong sense of what we believe can be real. A plausibility is almost an abandonment of potentiality as an evaluation, because the only way to know if a plausibility is possible/potential, is to applicably apply it to reality.

For example, although this may be a controversial example as we haven't hashed out math yet, I can hold that, even though I haven't experienced it, lining up (side by side) 2 in long candy bars for 3,000 feet has the potential to occur because it aligns with my knowledge (i.e. I do applicably know that there is 3,000 feet available to lay things and I do applicably know there are 2 in long candy bars); however, most importantly, according to your terminology, this is not possible since I haven't experienced it before. — Bob Ross

It is plausible. Its a claim about reality that has not been applicably tested yet. Maybe you aren't able to do it when you try. When applying a plausibility to reality, details come up that we haven't thought about. For example, what type of candy bar? Are we standing them vertically, or laterally? What is the surface, something inclined, rough, or flat? A possibility already has those answers. If you stand a candy bar, you can evaluate that candy bar and glean all the necessary information to show how it is applicably known.

So, if you have all of those answers, then you can state, since it is possible to line up a candy bar in X manner, then it is possible that a candy bar will be able to be lined up if X manner is repeated. Because there is no claim that the candy bar should not be able to stand if X manner is repeated, it stands to reason that if we could duplicate X manner many times, 3000 per say, the candy bars would stand aligned. But, if we've never aligned a candy bar one time, we don't applicably know if its possible.

Math alone does not evaluate the details of whether something is possible or plausible. For example, I can state 1 unicorn + 1 unicorn is 2 unicorns. That is distinctively known. But if I go looking for unicorns in reality, the fantastical magical horse kind, I do not know if its possible. The hierarchy of inductions is in relation to a beliefs application to reality. It is not a question of the distinctive knowledge that leads up to the belief itself.

Likewise, without ever experiencing it, I can hold that it is irrational to believe that one can fit 7,000 2 in long candy bars, side by side long ways, within 1,000 feet (because, abstractly, 1,000 feet can only potentially hold 6,000 2 inch candy bars side by side).

You can calculate that it is implausible abstractly. Lets even say we add details to make sure its impossible, such as ensuring the candy bars cannot be squished together. This again, is just like showing that just as a candy bar with X properties can stand, some object of unchangeable X dimensionality cannot fit into another area of X unchangeable dimensionality. But, we need to experience the possibility of two unchangeable dimensionalities, where one can fit inside of the other. Set it up correctly, and you are describing what is possible (or impossible in this case).

Just as an aside, it might be beneficial to describe what I consider distinctively impossible. What is distinctively impossible, is a plausibility that takes two possibilities, and results in a contradiction of at least one possibility. A plausibility, cannot claim a possibility is incorrect, as it is a lower level on the hierarchy due to its level of applicable knowledge relation. Applicable impossibility, is found when new applicable knowledge contradicts our previous possibilities.

Something can't be plausible if it can be proven to have no potential (and it doesn't necessarily have to be "I've experienced the exact, contradictory, event to this claim, therefore it is an irrational induction": — Bob Ross

So to adjust this sentence with the defined terms we have so far, "Something can't be plausible if it can be proven to be impossible (distinctive or applicable). Something can't be plausible if is contradicts what is possible both in our distinctive and applicable knowledge.

I could make subjective thresholds for what constitutes "experiencing something before" that renders possibilities utterly meaningless. — Bob Ross

True of everything. But can we turn it the other way, and make a threshold of what constitutes "experiencing something before" that renders possibilities meaningful when applied to reality. Yes. Can we do the same with potentiality? So far, I don't believe a definition of the word has been created so far that can be applied to reality consistently, clearly, and in a way that cannot be replaced by another word.

Potentiality doesn't pertain to the "truth" of the matter, just a requisite to what one should rationally not pursue. It is a deeper level, so to speak, of analysis that can meaningfully allow subjects to reject other peoples' claims just like what you are describing. — Bob Ross

Perhaps potentiality describes the hierarchy of induction itself then? In essence, the hierarchy allows us to rationally dismiss beliefs of a lower hierarchy that compete with ours. If I believe I have a 1/52 chance of pulling an ace of spades, and someone says, "Well its possible you could not pull an ace of spades," its not going to change the odds. The idea that an evil demon could change the result of the card, destroying my odds, is a plausibility that can be dismissed as well. And someone coming up with the idea that its actually 1/53 cards is an irrationality I can outright dismiss.

That being said, I do believe the level difference in the hierarchy should temper how quickly you dismiss a counter belief. One removed should always be considered to ensure your currently held belief is correct. But if you find upon re-evaluation that your level of hierarchy still holds, you may dismiss it. Perhaps this is what you mean by "potential"? The difference of the level of the hierarchy determines how much consideration you should give to it when rationally thinking about it?

I think I'm going to stick with evaluating inductions in terms of rationality, instead of potentiality.

That is absolutely fine! My intention is not to pressure you into reforming it, but I do think this is a false dichotomy: this assumes potentiality is a separate option from rationality. — Bob Ross

Please continue to defend your viewpoints on potentiality. I have not thought on it at length until now, and I may have mentioned that the hierarchy is a baseline that can be used to build something more. I think at this point to construct potentiality as a viable term it will need to

a. Have a clear definition of what it is to be applicably known.
b. It must have an example of being applicably known.
c. Serve a purpose that another applicably known term cannot.

I can say it is possible to perform addition because I have experienced it before, I cannot say that it is possible to add 3 trillion + 3 trillion because I haven't experienced doing that before with those particular numbers: I am inducing that it still holds based off of the possibility of the operation of addition. — Bob Ross

To clarify again, the process of addition is distinctive knowledge. Adding the abstract of 3 trillion identities to 3 trillion identities will always result in 6 trillion identities, because that is the logic of discrete experience. Induction only occurs when we apply this to reality. What essential properties make up each identity of the the first 3 trillion in reality? The second 3 trillion? What counts as adding them to become the new 6 trillion identity? It is their proximity? Ownership? Time and place? If we can applicably know these identities, then we can apply the logic of identities, math, and applicably know the outcome.

I agree, but this doesn't mean it holds for all numbers. We induce that it does, but it isn't necessarily the case. We assume that when we take the limit of 1/infinity that it equals 0, but we don't know if that is really even possible to actually approach the limit infinitely to achieve 0. — Bob Ross

In this case, we distinctively know the answer. A limit means that the calculation will never result in 0. It is not ascertaining specifically how small that calculation can get. Its just a deduction that it will never arrive at 0. An induction would be, "If I apply the calculation with X numbers, I will get the result .0000000124. You'll have to actually do the calculation to applicably know whether that belief is true or not.

Likewise, we know that if there are N distinct things that N + 1 will hold, but we don't if N distinct things are actually possible (that is the induction aspect, which I think you agree with me on that, although I could be wrong). — Bob Ross

This is correct. We distinctively know the abstraction of N identities plus one more will always result in F(N). But if we apply this math to reality, to see if there are actually N identities in existence, we are using an induction that must be verified.

Yes, I may need a bit more clarification on this to properly assess what is going on. Your example of the pink elephant is sort of implying to me something different than what I was trying to address. I was asking about the fundamental belief that you think and not a particular knowledge derived from that thought (in terms of a pink elephant). I feel like, so far, you are mainly just stating essentially that you just think, therefore you think. I'm trying to assess deeper than that in terms of your epistemology with respect to this concept, but I will refrain as I have a feeling I am just simply not understanding you correctly. — Bob Ross

I distinctively know that I think of a pink elephant. If I believe that a pink elephant exists in the next room, I have to go through the steps of applying that to reality to applicably know if that's true or not. This is just like math. I distinctively know N+1=F(N), but when I apply that to reality, I have to go through the steps that show it can be applied without contradiction by fleshing out exactly what it is I'm adding.

Yes, but your essays made it sound like probability is its own separate thing and then you can mix them within chains of inductions. On the contrary, I think that "probability" itself is actually, at a more fundamental level, contingent on possibility and plausibility for it to occur in the first place. — Bob Ross

Lets see if we can break this down. If I applicably know the cards in a deck, and applicably know I cannot know the order of shuffling, nor can the person doing the shuffling, then I can claim probability directly based upon applicable knowledge. Possibility is underneath probability in the fact that a probability is a calculated possibility with limits. A possibility alone has no assessment of calculated limitations. Its possible that I can draw a card. Its probable that its a 4/52 chance of being a jack.

Another great deep dive Bob! I hope that clarified numbers a bit, and also gave you a set of points you could use to define potential in a way that fits within the epistemology. I look forward to your responses as well!

The story of Phineas Gage is in all likelihood a popular delusion, repeated endlessly, including within the neuroscience community, which should know better. — Torbill

Though your assertion is questionable, Gage was only used as a popular reference. His contribution to our understanding that the brain is who you are is so insignificant, it doesn't matter whether you doubt the account or not. Here's a link that covers a brief history of lobotomies since the 1880's.
https://www.livescience.com/42199-lobotomy-definition.html

Here's a quote from it:
While a small percentage of people supposedly showed improved mental conditions or no change at all, for many patients, lobotomy had negative effects on their personality, initiative, inhibitions, empathy and ability to function on their own, according to Lerner.

"The main long-term side effect was mental dullness," Lerner said. People could no longer live independently, and they lost their personalities, he added.

Although I understand what you are saying, and I agree with you in a sense, potentiality is not based off of hindsight but, rather, the exact same principle as everything else: what you applicably know at the time. — Bob Ross

I have been thinking about this for some time. I like the word "potential". I think its a great word. The problem is, it comes from a time prior to having an assessment of inductions. Much of what you are describing as potential, are a level of cogency that occurs in both probability, and possibility. The word potential in this context, is like the word "big". Its a nice general word, but isn't very specific, and is used primarily as something relative within a context.

Perhaps this is why I'm shying away from implementing it as something measurable within the hierarchy. Logically, I can only say inductions are more cogent, or rational than another. I have absolutely no basis to measure the potential of an induction's capability of accurately assessing reality. At the most, I suppose I would be comfortable with stating that "potential" is anything that is the realm of probability or possibility, as these directly rely on claims of applicable knowledge in their chain of rationality, but I cannot use it as anything more than that before it turns into an amorphous general word that people use to describe what they are feeling at the time.

Potentiality is the first (or at least one of the first) considerations when attempting to determine knowledge. If the subject determines there is no potential, then they constitute any further extrapolations as irrational and thereby disband from it. — Bob Ross

This is what I mean by saying the word begins to morph into something too general. Now a word which could describe a state of probability or possibility, becomes an emotional driving force for why we seek to do anything. I could hold an irrational belief, and say its because its potentially true. Potential in this case more describes, "I believe something, because I believe something (It has potential). Its not that potential is a poor word, its just as its been used, its too poorly defined and amorphous. Without concrete measurement, it can be used to state that any belief in reality could be true. So until a more concrete and defined use of the word can be created, I think I'm going to stick with evaluating inductions in terms of rationality, instead of potentiality.

If I induce something based off of F(N), this is no different than inducing something off of 1/N chances, except that, I would say, anything induced from the former is more cogent. — Bob Ross

But I think the problem remains: where does mathematical inductions fit into the hierarchy? — Bob Ross

So earlier, I was trying to explain that math was the logical conclusions of being able to discretely experience. I remember when I learned about mathematical inductions, I thought to myself, "That's not really an induction." The conclusion necessarily follows from the premises of a mathematical induction. I checked on this to be sure.

"Although its name may suggest otherwise, mathematical induction should not be confused with inductive reasoning as used in philosophy (see Problem of induction). The mathematical method examines infinitely many cases to prove a general statement, but does so by a finite chain of deductive reasoning involving the variable n, which can take infinitely many values."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_induction

N + 1 = F(N) is a logical process, or rule that we've created. Adding one more identity to any number of identities, can result in a new identity that describes the total number of identities. It is not a statement of any specific identity, only the abstract concept of identities within our discrete experience. Because this is the logic of a being that can discretely experience, it is something we can discretely experience.

We could also state N+1= N depending on context. For example, I could say N = one field of grass. Actual numbers are the blades of grass. Therefore no matter how many blades of grass I add into one field of grass, it will still be a field of grass. I know this isn't real math, but I wanted to show that we can create concepts that can be internally consistent within a context. That is distinctive knowledge. "Math" is a methodology of symbols and consistent logic that have been developed over thousands of years, and works in extremely broad contexts.

My intention is not to try and put words in your mouth, but I think you are, if you think this, obliged to admit that you and thought are distinct then. I don't think you can hold the position that we discretely experience them without acknowledging this, but correct me if I am wrong. If you do think they are separate, then I agree, as I think that your assessment is quite accurate: we do apply our belief that we have thoughts to reality, because the process of thinking is apart of experience (reality). It is just the most immediate form of knowledge you have (I would say): rudimentary reason. — Bob Ross

I don't believe you did in this case. If you recall, thoughts come after the realization we discretely experience. The term "thought" is a label of a type of discrete experience. I believe I defined it in the general sense of what you could discretely experience even when your senses were shut off. And yes, you distinctively know what you think. If I think that a pink elephant would be cool, I distinctively know this. If I find a pink elephant in reality, this may, or may not be applicably known. Now that you understand the theory in full, the idea of thoughts could be re-examined for greater clarity, definition, and context. I only used it in the most generic sense to get an understanding of the theory as a whole.

Two separate probabilities, with the same chances, could be unequal in terms of sureness (and cogency I would say). You could have a 33% chance in scenario 1 and 2, but 1 is more sure of a claim than 2. This would occur if scenario 1 is X/Y where X and Y are possible numbers and scenario 2 is X/Y where X and Y are plausible numbers (meaning they have the potential to exist, but aren't possible because you haven't experienced them before). My main point was that there is a hierarchy within probabilities (honestly all math) as well. — Bob Ross

I think again this is still the chain of rationality. A probability based upon a plausibility, is less cogent than a probability based on a possibility.

Back to your idea of using math inductively.

For example, if I induce that I should go 30 miles per hour in my car to get to may destination, which is 60 miles away, in 2 hours, that is calculated with numbers that are a possibility or plausibility (the mathematical operations are possible, but not necessarily the use of those operations on those particular numbers in practicality). But this is more cogent than an induction that I should bet on picking a number card out of a deck (no matter how high the chances of picking it) because the former is a more concrete calculation to base things off of (it isn't "chances", in the sense that that term is used for probability). — Bob Ross

You distinctively know that if you travel 30 miles per hour to get to a destination 60 miles away, in 2 hours you will arrive there. Now, if you get in your vehicle, can you consistently travel 30 miles per hour? Is the destination exactly 60 miles away, or is it 60 and some change? If say that any decimals are insignificant digits, and you can travel exactly 20 miles per hour, and the distance is exactly 60 miles away, then you will arrive in exactly two hours, because we have defined distance and time and applied it to reality to work that way without contradiction.

A probability is not a deduction, but an induction based upon the limitations of the deductions we have. Probability notes there are aspects of the situation that we lack knowledge over. As noted earlier, a randomly shuffled deck of cards is not really random. We call it "random" because we distinctively and applicably know that we lack the ability to observe the order it was shuffled in. We induce what is rationally most likely when we lack this information, based on the other information we do know.

As such, the first case is actually a deduction, the second is an induction.

This may be me just being nit picky, but none of those were probable (they are not quantitative likelihoods, they are qualitative likelihoods). — Bob Ross

You are correct! I was being sloppy. I was more interested in conveying the idea of chains of rationality. Instead of average, I should have said "median". In that case we know we have a majority of spots on one side that would be above or below the temperature of the other side, and could create a probability.

But my main point is there is a 4th option you left out: if I can create a mathematical equation that predicts the heat of a surface based off of it's exposure to light, then it would be more cogent than a probability (it is a mathematical induction based on a more concrete function than probability) but, yet, mathematical inductions aren't a category. — Bob Ross

I think most of the conversation has boiled down to induction vs deductions with math. Math is a tool that can be used to create deductions, or inductions, just like distinctive knowledge. Looking at distinctive knowledge, everything inside of itself that is internally consistent is deduced. But I can induce something. I can state, "This distinctive knowledge applies to reality without contradiction, even though I haven't applied it to reality yet." This is the impetus of all beliefs. Trying to find a way to measure more rationally which beliefs we should spend the time and effort pursing is why we develop a system of knowledge, and use the inductive hierarchy.

Math is merely the logic of discrete experience. Meaning you can use math deductively, and also use some of those deductions to make predictions about reality. These aren't mathematical inductions, these are inductions based on math within its chain of rationality. Does this make sense?

Absolutely fantastic deep dive here Bob. I've wanted to so long to discuss how the knowledge theory applies to math, and its been a joy to do so. I also really want to credit your desire for "potentiality" to fit in the theory. Its not that I don't think it can, I just think it needs to be more carefully defined, and serve a purpose that cannot be gleaned with the terms we already have in the theory. Thank you again for the points, you are a keen philosopher!

I'm not really seeing clear cases of morality here. When I think about morality, I think about 10 commandment stuff. Lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc. Do you believe that women on average view these things as any less or more moral than men on average?

This chance is almost certainly zero. Even if the universe happens again, even a slight fluctuation would result in a different outcome. You only happen once. You will never happen again. Embrace that.

I'm more interested in the quality of the classes. If you're poor, and live in homeless squalor because of it, I think there's an issue. I'm also not worried about the middle class. There will always be different reward structures for different jobs. The question is the floor. What I want is for anyone who is able to work 40 hours a week should be able to afford a basic life with water, electricity, and internet without need for government assistance. That is not middle class. But it is a minimum standard I would like the world to live by.

Perhaps instead of saying something comes from nothing, how about instead you say, "Something that has no prior explanation for its formed existence." Nothing can't do anything. But perhaps there is something that exists that does not have a prior cause.

While it can be fun to speculate about what happens after death, without some rational basis, its just a supposition, not really philosophy.

From everything we know, you are a physical entity. If we damage the brain in particular areas, you will lose capabilities. There are several examples. Phineus Gage had a complete personality change when a rebar shot through his skull. There are people who cannot remember longer than a few minutes, which of course limits who they are. There is an example of a man who had brain damage and could no longer see colors, everything was black and white.

Barring extremes, diet and proper firing of the brain result in a happier and different person. A person without depression is very different from a person with depression. When you get drunk, your brain hinders your ability to think. That isn't your soul being affected by alcohol.

Finally, there's death. We have countless cases. In every case of a person dying, they've remained dead. The brain is gone, and so is the person. There is no field of consciousness. No electromagnetic transportation of our consciousness. There is only the belief and desire that such things will occur.

I am not trying to be mean, or get you down. On the contrary, understanding the truth of your own inevitable death can help you in how you approach life. Make sure you make the best of it, one day it will be gone forever.

It is completely up to you, but I think that inapplicable plausibilities should be a plausibility; It is just that, in order to avoid contradictions, "plausibility" shouldn't be defined as what can be applicably known, just what one believes is "true" — Bob Ross

I agree with this! I got caught up in my own verbiage, and need to separate the inductions by the ability to apply applicable knowledge, that I forgot one does not believe one can applicably know something to believe it is real.

On a separate note, the potentiality of a belief would be differentiated between irrational inductions and all other forms (as in it is irrational if it has no potential). — Bob Ross

Here, I am very careful to not use the word potentiality, because I think it loses meaning as an evaluative tool in the inductive hierarchy. Colloquially, I think its fine. I understand what you mean. But the reason why I don't think it works in the hierarchy is because the inductive hierarchy is not trying to assert what has more potential of being true, only which induction is more rational.

I believe this is a very important distinction. Recall that what is applicably known is based upon our context as well. A very narrow context might lead us to some strange probabilities and possibilities. It doesn't mean they are potential, as reality may very well defy them. They are simply rational inductions based on the applicable knowledge we have at the time.

Further, potentiality is not something the hierarchy can objectively measure. Let say that in a deck of 52 cards, you can choose either a face card, or a number card will be drawn next. You have three guesses. Saying number cards is more rational going by the odds. But the next three cards drawn are face cards. The deck was already shuffled prior to your guess. The reality was the face cards were always going to be drawn next, there was actually zero potential that any number cards were going to be pulled in the next three draws. What you made was the most rational decision even though it had zero potential of actually happening.

Lets go one more step. Same scenario. Only this time, I didn't put any number cards in the deck, and didn't tell you. You believe I made an honest deck of cards, when I did not. You had no reason to believe I would be dishonest in this instance, and decided to be efficient, and assume the possibility I was honest. With this induction, I rationally again choose number cards. Again however, the potential for number cards to be drawn was zero.

An induction cannot predict potentiality, because an induction is a guess about reality. The conclusion is not necessarily drawn from the premises. Some guesses can be more rational than another, but what is rational within our context, may have zero potential of actually being. That being said, generally acting rationally is a good idea, because it is based on what we do applicably know about the world, versus what we do not. It is less uncertainty, but has no guarantee.

So, I do understand your intention behind using potentiality, and in the end, it might boil down to semantics and context. For the purposes of trying to provide a clear and rational hierarchy, I'm just not sure whether potentiality is something that would assist, or cloud the intention and use of the tool.

Whereas, on the contrary, electrons can have two spin states: up or down. However, unlike the previous 6-sided die example, the subject, if they are quantum inclined (:, will assume the electron is equally likely in both positions (thus, not assuming the law of noncontradiction in the same sense as before). — Bob Ross

Not to get too off on a tangent here, but I believe the only reason we calculate it as having both, is because it is equally likely they could be either prior to measurement. It is like calculating what would happen for each side of a six sided die prior to rolling the die. But perhaps we shouldn't wade into quantum physics for examples, as I believe it mostly to be a field of conceptual land mines in any conversation, much less while addressing a new theory of knowledge!

To say that the probability of 1/52 is more cogent than a possibility seems wrong to me, as I am extrapolating that from the possibility of there being 52 cards. — Bob Ross

Probability does not assert there are possibly 52 cards, it asserts that there are 52 cards, whether this be based on applicable knowledge or belief. Of course, what if I'm having a thought experiment? This is a great time to get into math.

Math is the language of discrete experience, and distinctive knowledge. 1, is "a discrete experience" One blade of grass. A field of grass. One piece of grass. It is the abstraction of our ability to discretely experience "a" thing. "Two" is the idea that we can create 1 discrete experience, and another discrete experience. The discrete experience of both together as one identity, is two.

Math is the logic of discrete experience. It is why it fits so well into our world view, because it is an abstraction of how we view the world. When I say, "two blades of grass," this relies on a context of two identities that are similar enough to be labeled "blades of grass". It does not assert their equality on a mass or atomic level. This is because it is an abstraction of our ability to contextualize identities down to their essential properties for the purposes of addition and subtraction, while throwing out all non-essential properties.

The proofs of math work, because they can be confirmed by our discrete experience being actively applied. Therefore I can abstract that if I have 20 bushels of hay, and take away 2 bushels of hay, I have 18 bushels of hay. I can discretely experience that in my head right now. I'm not claiming what constitutes a bushel. I have no need for the weight of each bushel down to the ounce, its color, smell, etc. I just need a discrete experience of a bushel, and this is enough to abstract something useful for reality.

Even so, just like language, math must be applied to reality without contradiction to be applicably known. I can predict that a feather will fall at 9.8 meters a second, but may find in my measurements it does not . I might state that my 5 bushels of hay at 20 pounds each will result in 100 pounds of hay, but upon actual measurement, I find they only weigh 98 pounds.

For example, if I have a function F(N) = N + 1, this is a mathematical induction but not a probability. So, is it a plausibility? Is it a possibility? — Bob Ross

This is a known function. This is an observation of our own discrete experience. If I take N identities, and add one more, then this will equal the identities added together. So, 2+1 are the same as the identity of 3. This applies to the abstract of discrete experience, which when applied to reality could specifically be bushels of hay, sheep, etc. As it is in its functional form, it is only a descriptive logic of discrete experiencing.

This leads to,

Thirdly, it also depends on how you define "apply to reality" whether that holds true. Consider the belief that you have thoughts: is your confirmation of that ever applied to "reality"? — Bob Ross

This goes back to the beginning of the essay. Recall that what we discretely experience, we know. That is because it is impossible to deny that we discretely experience. When I discretely experience something that I label as "thoughts" in my head, I distinctively know I have them. Applicable knowledge is when we apply our distinctive knowledge outside of our own ability to create identity as we wish. I might believe that the apple in front of me is healthy for me, but when I bite into it, I find it rotten. The apple is something apart from my own identifiable control in this way. Your thoughts are also reality.

Distinctive knowledge occurs, because the existence of having thoughts is not contradicted. The existence of discretely experiencing cannot be contradicted. Therefore it is knowledge. I label this special type of knowledge distinctive, because it is something within our control. I can create a world of magic and unicorns distinctively, but there is a limit when applied to that which I do not have control over, reality.

So, going back again to abstracting the idea of 1/52 playing cards, I can distinctively create the limitation in my head that there are 52 playing cards, that they are randomly shuffled, and 1 is pulled without applicably knowing which card it is. I can then establish the limitations of what the necessary possibilities are knowing what each card is within the deck. But, if I applicably apply this probability to any one particular deck in reality, what actually happens is what actually happens.

Perhaps some of the cards were not all the same weight or smoothness, and it causes some of them to stick in the shuffle. Perhaps there is some strange law of physics we didn't know about in reality that causes the Ace of spades to come up more frequently. Math is the ideal of distinctive knowledge, but it must still be applied to reality when it makes a prediction about a particular reality to see if it is applicably known.

Secondly, it seems a bit wrong to me to grant probabilities their own category when there can be plausible probability claims and possible probability claims. — Bob Ross

We cannot meaningfully understand what plausible probability is, without first distinctively and applicably knowing what plausibility, and probability are first. Recall then, that a plausible probability is a chain of reasoning. I have a plausibility, and from that plausibility, I assert a probability. I have a possibility, and from that I assert a probability. I have applicable knowledge, and from that applicable knowledge, I assert a probability.

If I could compare all three inductions, it would be most rational to use the one that has applicable knowledge as its base.

1. Its plausible the dark side of the moon is on average hotter than the light side of the moon, therefore it is probable any point on the dark side of the moon will be hotter than any point on the light side of the moon.
2. Its possible the side of the moon facing away from Earth is on average colder than the light side of the moon, therefore it is probable any point on the dark side of the moon will be colder than any point on the light side of the moon.
3. The dark side of the moon has been measured on average to be cooler than the light side of the moon at this moment, therefore it is probable any point on the dark side of the moon will be colder than any point on the light side of the moon.

As you can see, intuitively, and rationally, it would seem the close the base of the chain is to applicable knowledge, the more cogent the induction.

I think that it is an absolutely brilliant assessment! Well done! However, I think, although we have similar views, that there's still a bit to hash out. — Bob Ross

Thank you! Yes, please continue to drill into the theory as much as you can. Its usefulness is only as good as its ability to withstand critiques. Again, greatly enjoying the conversation, and my thanks for your pointed assessment and crticism!

One objection - I think I did note a bit of the lack of respect for gun rights supporters that is the source of a lot of the political problems with this issue. — T Clark

I appreciate the feedback, and did not mean to come across that way. I will be more careful of attitude going forward. Funny enough, I own a gun, I support owning a gun, and like the second amendment.

What an amazing job you have! Thanks for taking the fight. If no one does, it will never get done.

First, people are not rational. They are rationalizing. This means people have a certain outcome they want, and will grab justifications for it. When someone is excessively emotionally invested in an outcome, they will not budge, and hold justifications that are easily disproven without question.

I believe gun laws (and more and more, politics) are mostly a highly emotional rationalization for people. You can cite statistics until you're blue in the face, and it won't matter. While that is the seemingly depressing part, it doesn't mean you can't persuade someone. You must first persuade someone emotionally, then give the justification of those statistics to solidify it against competing emotional pulls.

To do so, you have to find the root emotions of why a person holds certain beliefs. You then have to provide an equal, or greater emotional reason for them to leave, then apply justifications that make them feel like they are also justified in leaving their own position.

For gun owners, the emotional appeals seem primarily to me to be the feeling of self-empowerment. You can subdivide this into safety, respect, feeling awesome, etc. If you provide a solution erases the emotion of self-empowerment, many people will resist you no matter what you do. That is because many people like feeling self-empowered, and guns may be one of the few avenues they feel so.

So how can you persuade someone that regulating guns does not give up self-empowerment, or even enhances it? One brain storm idea is the notion of personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is part of self-empowerment. One, it takes the notion that not only do you have power, you are wise enough to use it correctly. Personal responsibility uses the lure of status. "I'm better than others because not only do I use guns, I use them responsibly". Just look at the posts after Baldwin accidently shot his coworkers. I went on Fox news and found page after page of,

"The first rule of gun ownership is to never point a gun at someone without checking if it was loaded." This was repeated on mantra, with self-pride and superiority. Of course its completely ridiculous to apply to the situation of being handed a prop gun by people you pay to check them for you. But it doesn't matter. Its about the emotional self-satisfaction first, rational argument second.

If you can persuade the populace emotionally, that non killing someone is a form of superiority and self-empowerment, then provide justification for that emotion, then you can get people away from irresponsible use, and create a culture of responsible gun use.

That of course may not require legislation. Legislation that is about control is almost always about taking away empowerment from one group of society. It doesn't matter if its rational to do so, would save lives, or even save the world. That group will have a significant portion who will defend the emotion of their self-empowerment at the cost of a nuke going off. So I believe you need to start small. Target certain areas. Slowly integrate a better culture of personal responsibility. Seek to persuade people on an emotional level first, then only implement legislation on the minority who do not have the ethics or capability to advance to that level. If you've persuaded enough people to be more personally responsible, they will back you in stopping the people that they now deem inferior, from being irresponsible.

Laozi said that, so I guess he doesn't know? — Daemon

Its a lousy (Laozi) statement after all! I'm sorry, I couldn't resist the pun, :D